| Literature DB >> 26399398 |
Huayi Qu1, Wei Guo2, Rongli Yang3, Dasen Li4, Shun Tang5, Yi Yang6, Sen Dong7, Jie Zang8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The reconstruction of an intercalary bone defect after a tumor resection of a long bone remains a challenge to orthopedic surgeons. Though several methods have been adopted to enhance the union of long segmental allografts or retrieved segmental autografts to the host bones, still more progresses are required to achieve a better union rate. Several methods have been adopted to devitalize tumor bone for recycling usage, and the results varied. We describe our experiences of using devitalized tumor-bearing bones for the repairing of segmental defects after tumor resection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26399398 PMCID: PMC4581416 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0694-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 2A 26-year-old male patient with an Ewing sarcoma in the middle part of the right femur. a Radiograph showed a lytic lesion in the diaphysial region of the right femur. b MRI showed the lesion was about 8 cm. c A 12-cm segmental bone was resected, the soft tissue was removed, and the structural bone and the periosteum were preserved for divitalization. d Radiograph 2 weeks after the reconstruction showed that the devitalized bone fit the defect perfectly. e Continuous callus at the proximal junction and a perfect union at the distal junction were observed 8 months after the reconstruction
Fig. 3A 42-year-old patient with an adamantinoma of the left proximal tibia. a X-ray showed the lesion located at the proximal part of the left tibia. b MRI showed the knee joint was not involved by the tumor. c The structural bone and the periosteum were preserved after the tumor was cleared away. d X-ray showed the devitalized bone matched well with the host bones after the operation. e X-ray showed the cutting lines was disappeared, and the devitalized bone integrated well with the host bone at each ends 11 months after the operation
Fig. 1A flow-chart showing the selection of patients in this study when applying our inclusion criteria
Comparison with previous studies
| Authors | Number of patients | Devitalized method or graft being used | Nonunion rate (%) | Mean time to union (months) | Deep infection (%) | Fracture (%) | Mean follow-up time (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our study | 27 | 20 % Saline, 65 °C, 30 min | 7.4 | 11 | 11.1 | 3.7 | 62.8 |
| Jeon et al. | 21 | Pasteurized | 23.8 | 15.5 | 14.2 | 9.5 | 74.3 |
| Chen et al. | 15 | Irradiation | 7 | – | 0 | 20 | 71 |
| Pan et al. | 10 | Autoclave | 30 | 12 | 20 | 20 | 35 |
| Bus et al. | 87 | Allograft | 40 | – | 14 | 29 | 84 |
| Li et al. | 11 | Allograft + vascularized fibula graft | 9 | 11.8 | 0 | 0 | 34.1 |
En dash means data not given